Do you support to death penalty for extreme cases? - General

Do you support the death penalty for mass murderers, serial killers, or terrorists. Some people think the role of the criminal justice system is to deter criminals; that the punishments should be so severe that it will make people afraid of the consequences of committing a crime. Some of these people support the death penalty. Others think that the role of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate people, so they can be re-introduced back into society. Some of these people are against the death penalty. And others still believe that the role of the criminal justice system is simply to fulfill an ethical duty to give each what they are due for their crimes, regardless of the impact on society; that a criminal ought to be punished not because it will prevent others from committing crimes, or in order to rehabilitate him, but because it is simply what is morally right for the victims of the crime. What do you think? --- I personally think that prisons don't act as a deterrent; that criminals only end up becoming worse inside prisons in the US, and that we ought to rehabilitate people as best we can. However, I also think that there are some people not capable of rehabilitation or not worth rehabilitation. Anders Breivik, Timothy McVeigh, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. I think that these people, even if they can be rehabilitated, should not be released back into society in light of the crimes they committed. In this case, it would be pointless to rehabilitate them. The goal of the criminal justice system is to remove these people from the threat they impose on society. I support the death penalty in the case of criminals unable to be rehabilitated or who are pointless to rehabilitate. If we are simply removing them from the equation, then the death penalty is the best option for them, as housing them in prisons is just a waste of space.

If they are undoubtedly guilty and are incapable of being rehabilitated, yeah, I support it. Sometimes people are accused and punished for crimes they haven't committed, though.

If someone is undoubtedly, truly, terrifyingly evil, then yes. But since there aren't really any people like that, 99% of the time no.

no. I don't believe in God, but only God can judge them. what I mean, noone should slaughter them. they just should sit and rot in cell till they're heart stops beating.

[QUOTE=mralexs;50452578]If someone is undoubtedly, truly, terrifyingly evil, then yes. But since there aren't really any people like that, 99% of the time no.[/QUOTE] Right, I meant cases like terrorism and mass shootings, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Anders Breivik

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50452620]Right, I meant cases like terrorism and mass shootings, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Anders Breivik[/QUOTE] these guys are not fine. still they NEED to live. they need to suffer. and what makes a prison guard a God who can push a button for a lethal injection? and if we look at that prison guard. he had pushed button numerous times. does it make him mass murderer as well? it does! he kills bad guys? you think? you think your dzhokhar and anders killed only innocent saint and pure souls? nope. he probably killed someone 1 out 100 who did sin.

[QUOTE=Wizy;50452625]these guys are not fine. still they NEED to live. they need to suffer. and what makes a prison guard a God who can push a button for a lethal injection? and if we look at that prison guard. he had pushed button numerous times. does it make him mass murderer as well? it does! he kills bad guys? you think? you think your dzhokhar and anders killed only innocent saint and pure souls? nope. he probably killed someone 1 out 100 who did sin.[/QUOTE] But do you think that the goal of prison is retribution? I don't care if they suffer or not; I don't think making them suffer will bring back their victims or undo what they did. It doesn't deter anyone, and I doubt it makes their victims families feel better. I think the most utilitarian thing to do is simply to kill them and take them out of the world so they can't hurt anyone anymore. I don't want them to face the death penalty because I think they ought to be [I]punished[/I]. People like them don't understand right and wrong, or the consequences of their actions. There's no teaching them, and torturing them would only serve to fuel their sense of righteous indignation against the infidels of the west or the leftists and Jews which they sought to destroy. Nothing can be gained from causing them suffering. They're simply lost causes. I don't want to talk in such crass terms, but at that point it's not about justice or societal welfare, it's simply akin to taking out the trash.

I've argued with people and generally the opposing argument to the death penalty is founded on "unquestionable ethics", like the idea that all men are equal. If I challenge that, they ask if I'm questioning human rights and might take the next step in outright dismissing me. And yes, I do question human rights on a very fundamental level: are people honestly equal? Would you say that your mother is on the same level as Hitler, or that Martin Luther King Jr. is on the same level as Charles Manson? Why is this comparison in anyway sensible or fair? In my opinion, looking at all people as equal completely eliminates their identity and replaces what was there with a number. [I]"Hey, he is a person, therefore he's the same and should be treated as such."[/I] When it comes to attributes like race and gender, yeah, people should be treated the same, but when they actually lash out and start subtracting from society, why are we expected to treat them as [I]just another human being[/I]? I used to be against the death penalty even through my friend being murdered. I used to think of it as, "Oh, they can get better." There's that famous shitpost that hits these threads every time where someone jokingly says, "they can be rehabilitated", but there is some truth to the sarcasm - can everyone really be rehabilitated? We're not at the point of psychology where we can truly fix people. We're not at the point of psychology where we can truly fix a person like Charles Manson. If things were my way, I'd want for psychologists to be able to study people like him, but since that's illegal I don't really see a point in caring for them nor would I convince myself that they can be fixed, because that has literally no basis. In context it's wishful thinking, and shouldn't be treated as anything more than wishful thinking. (If you don't like that, bring it into a different context by funding mental health research and changing the legality of conducting research on prisoners.) Something I like asking people who are against the death penalty and for rehabilitation: what do we do if they end up "rehabilitated" and go out and stab a few more people to death? What do we do then? Just throw them back into rehab? Do we just keep this looping feel-good diversion to actually solving problems going? Because that's what I think a lot of the opponents are trying to do, feel good about a solution that doesn't actually solve anything. "Fixing" a serial killer doesn't fix what causes people in our society to become a serial killer in the first place. It is an attempt to fix [I]them[/I] specifically, and that's backwards thinking. Serial killings and mass murder are the end of the thread that trace back to a common center that's being largely ignored: poverty, a lack of consideration towards mental health, bad parenting, gangs... these are all big issues that are totally hard to fix but are necessary to prevent future headlines. And yet, people are attached to a life that I'm genuinely convinced they don't care about. They want that person alive just to forget about them and leave them to imagined therapists that'll take care of them and make them a friendly person. These people never make the consideration that maybe the person that committed the terrible acts have no interest in being a good person and can be dangerously manipulative or deceptive. With that said, I think death penalty is conceptually fine, and my only objections are at the justice level - our justice system is broken. There's not a lot of well functioning justice systems in the world. Much like I object to "rehabilitation" because it probably wouldn't work in practice, I object to the death penalty because it [I]has[/I] failed in practice, with the execution both socially and literally of innocent people. However, that's beyond the scope of simply asking if I support the death penalty - after all the question isn't "do you support the United States conducting death penalties". [editline]3rd June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Wizy;50452625]still they NEED to live. they need to suffer.[/QUOTE] This is proof that not all people who object the death penalty are pure. There's plenty of sadistic fuckers on both sides. Really, if it were my decision, they should be put to sleep in the same way we assist suicides - I just want them out of a society they can't function in. And sometimes, I view that as merciful. There's some people that can't function, and will live as a black hole that detracts from themselves and others.

[QUOTE=Wizy;50452594]no. I don't believe in God, but only God can judge them. what I mean, noone should slaughter them. they just should sit and rot in cell till they're heart stops beating.[/QUOTE] That costs money. And time. And resources.

Absolutely never, it doesn't matter if it's Hitler 2.0 or Ted Bundy 2.0, the state should never have the ability to end someone's life. We must stay above them and not act upon emotion.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50452758]We must stay above them and not act upon emotion.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's emotion that makes the decision. The decisions will be made by a sober logical judge that should have the ability to see beyond the cries of the public. If it is 100% no doubt perfectly clear that this person is beyond rehabilitation and is a definite threat to society and others, then there is no reason to keep them locked away to potentially cause chaos behind bars or otherwise rot and take up resources until the day they die through natural causes (Which could be decades). Logic would decide that the death sentence is the most efficient way to deal with an irreversibly chaotic individual. It saves resources, saves time, and gives the general public peace of mind. I don't think they'd go so far as to desecrate the body and just dump it in a ditch either. All dead people should get the same respect for them in whether they want to be buried or cremated, a plot to be chosen, and a final resting place.

People always say "for extreme cases" but where do we draw the line at extreme? I'm sure there's arguments that the current death penalty system in the US is for "extreme cases", yet you get scary figures like 1 in 9 killed prisoners turning out to be innocent. On paper, "death penalty for extreme cases" sounds like a good idea, but this kind of thing will never work the way people want. There are other ways to make incredibly dangerous people stay out of society.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50452758]Absolutely never, it doesn't matter if it's Hitler 2.0 or Ted Bundy 2.0, the state should never have the ability to end someone's life. We must stay above them and not act upon emotion.[/QUOTE] Why is it "above them" to keep them alive? [editline]3rd June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Samiam22;50452857]People always say "for extreme cases" but where do we draw the line at extreme? I'm sure there's arguments that the current death penalty system in the US is for "extreme cases", yet you get scary figures like 1 in 9 killed prisoners turning out to be innocent. On paper, "death penalty for extreme cases" sounds like a good idea, but this kind of thing will never work the way people want. There are other ways to make incredibly dangerous people stay out of society.[/QUOTE] I'm reading stats and I'm getting stuff hovering around 4%. Everything that's notably higher is from a biased source.

[QUOTE=Daemon White;50452814]I don't think it's emotion that makes the decision. The decisions will be made by a sober logical judge that should have the ability to see beyond the cries of the public. If it is 100% no doubt perfectly clear that this person is beyond rehabilitation and is a definite threat to society and others, then there is no reason to keep them locked away to potentially cause chaos behind bars or otherwise rot and take up resources until the day they die through natural causes (Which could be decades). Logic would decide that the death sentence is the most efficient way to deal with an irreversibly chaotic individual. It saves resources, saves time, and gives the general public peace of mind. I don't think they'd go so far as to desecrate the body and just dump it in a ditch either. All dead people should get the same respect for them in whether they want to be buried or cremated, a plot to be chosen, and a final resting place.[/QUOTE] Injections are very expensive too. I probably sound super weird for defending murderers but honestly they still don't deserve to be killed, just keep them in a room with a tv and a professional to talk to (even if they can't help them). It's not about costs, just put them somewhere where they can't harm another person. Believe it or not they are still human.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50452925]Injections are very expensive too. They are still human, I probably sound super weird for defending murderers but honestly they still don't deserve to be killed, just keep them in a room with a tv and a professional to talk to (even if they can't help them). It's not about costs, just put them somewhere where they can't harm another person. Believe it or not they are still human.[/QUOTE] I don't think you're weird for it, nor do I think you're stupid for it - I used to believe that too. But being human shouldn't entitle you to life. If you can't function without killing others, you're dangerous and should be taken off of everyone's hands. Expressing a great deal of empathy for someone who isn't empathetic can be a terrible weakness - would you pull the trigger on someone who's going to pull the trigger on your mom? Well, this is a similar situation, except the trigger is pointed on society. In many cases, they're probably going to do it again. They don't function like regular human beings. They might have i[url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/20/columbine.myths/]ncredible narcissistic complexes[/url], or [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson]they might lack empathy[/url], for instance.

I would support the death penalty only if our justice system was entirely infallible.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50452925]Injections are very expensive too. I probably sound super weird for defending murderers but honestly they still don't deserve to be killed, just keep them in a room with a tv and a professional to talk to (even if they can't help them). It's not about costs, just put them somewhere where they can't harm another person. Believe it or not they are still human.[/QUOTE] [quote]Injections are very expensive too.[/quote] Not as expensive as feeding, housing, and looking over them for decades. [quote]I probably sound super weird for defending murderers but honestly they still don't deserve to be killed, just keep them in a room with a tv and a professional to talk to (even if they can't help them).[/quote]There's nothing wrong with that way of thinking. This is life or death, but why try to help those that are unhelpable? [quote]It's not about costs, just put them somewhere where they can't harm another person.[/quote]It most definitely is about costs. On a case by case basis, it may not sound like a lot of money to kill/jail a person for life, but you need to scale this up for thousands and thousands of people. The money comes from somewhere. I'd rather not pay so sick people can live. [quote]Believe it or not they are still human.[/quote]I don't see how being a human is relevant in whether or not they should be killed.

One should only end another human's life if they are about to harm someone else and there is no other way to stop them. Due to the modern world's concept of prison there should never be a situation where an execution by the state is necessary.

I wouldn't trust any current jurisdiction system with the death penalty. Just keep them in prison for life, it's not gonna have an economic impact on society because even if it hypothetically is cheaper to execute someone, the amount of cases where you'd have to choose between prison for life and a death penalty is so tiny - unless something is horribly wrong. Not that I think it's tasteful or even relevant to argue money in this context.

[QUOTE=Wizy;50452594]no. I don't believe in God, but only God can judge them. what I mean, noone should slaughter them. they just should sit and rot in cell till they're heart stops beating.[/QUOTE] I just realized I skipped over this, but you think only God can judge a serial killer? Sometimes people are just pieces of shit, and it's plain to see.

[QUOTE=man with hat;50452570]If they are undoubtedly guilty and are incapable of being rehabilitated, yeah, I support it. Sometimes people are accused and punished for crimes they haven't committed, though.[/QUOTE] No one is undoubtedly guilty. We can try to find the most likely conclusion given the evidence but we have no system that's infallible.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50452546]Some people think the role of the criminal justice system is to deter criminals; that the punishments should be so severe that it will make people afraid of the consequences of committing a crime. Some of these people support the death penalty. Others think that the role of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate people, so they can be re-introduced back into society. Some of these people are against the death penalty. And others still believe that the role of the criminal justice system is simply to fulfill an ethical duty to give each what they are due for their crimes, regardless of the impact on society; that a criminal ought to be punished not because it will prevent others from committing crimes, or in order to rehabilitate him, but because it is simply what is morally right for the victims of the crime.[/QUOTE] i just want to say that the way you wrote these explanations on each side in such a simple and easy to understand way is great you never see shit like this most of the time, always just dumb excuses for their own side and extremes for the other but you wrote it in a way that gives each side a fair shake and allows the person reading to truly form their own opinion on the subject thanks you

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50453158]I just realized I skipped over this, but you think only God can judge a serial killer? Sometimes people are just pieces of shit, and it's plain to see.[/QUOTE] Are you gonna be the judge of who is a piece of shit then? Are we gonna have criterias to decide who deserves a death penalty? What measures should be taken to determine wether a person is ever going to be able to be helped or not? What measures should be taken to determine wether a person is actually guilty or not? These are mostly rhetorical questions and I ask them because it's not as simple as some people being good while others being bad and deserving death.

To be honest, if there's no hope for successful rehab or parole, I kinda feel like they should just make it an optional thing between execution and life in prison for people being punished for serious crimes to decide. Yeah, I get that most people don't want to pay for prisoners like that to live, but that's just my take on it.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50453296]Are you gonna be the judge of who is a piece of shit then? Are we gonna have criterias to decide who deserves a death penalty? What measures should be taken to determine wether a person is ever going to be able to be helped or not? What measures should be taken to determine wether a person is actually guilty or not? These are mostly rhetorical questions and I ask them because it's not as simple as some people being good while others being bad and deserving death.[/QUOTE] Does anyone object to Charles Manson being a piece of shit? How about Jeffery Dahmer? How about the Columbine Shooters? How about the Charleston shooter? Sure, we should focus on making sure that the line doesn't get blurred and we start killing people for reasons other than murder, but there's people that are undeniably shitty. People who are suggesting that these mass shootings and serial killings aren't terrible are contrarians that should be ignored.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50453318]Does anyone object to Charles Manson being a piece of shit? How about Jeffery Dahmer? How about the Columbine Shooters? How about the Charleston shooter? Sure, we should focus on making sure that the line doesn't get blurred and we start killing people for reasons other than murder, but there's people that are undeniably shitty. People who are suggesting that these mass shootings and serial killings aren't terrible are contrarians that should be ignored.[/QUOTE] contrarians shouldnt be ignored unless theyre doing it for the sole purpose of enciting anger they might have real reasons to their opinions that should be accounted for and as for analyzing people as shitty or not shit, it takes a lot more than facts about their actions and inherent instinct to judge a person's character and ability to heal humans are complicated creatures and absorb information and their mindset from people and their life style maybe there is such a thing as a broken man whos been so damaged by his lifestyle/people around him/the way he was born that he cant be fixed and really has no chance of redemption beyond death, but it would be a rare case as humans are versatile creatures who are always able to bounce back from near death and defeat, and i think that the case of the broken man could be similar either way, the broken man is an exception and people shouldnt assume that every criminal is broken in that way everyone deserves a chance for redemption through life and allowing a small percentage of criminals who actually are broken to live wouldnt and shouldnt seen as something wrong either way, the main reasons (as i see it) that people want the death penalty is out of revenge because they knew the victims (or were the victims) and to save a few cents of their taxes it doesnt take a genius to realize that revenge is never the right answer, and i think that no matter what a person did, their life is worth more than a few cents and shouldnt be thrown away because of that

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50453318]Does anyone object to Charles Manson being a piece of shit? How about Jeffery Dahmer? How about the Columbine Shooters? How about the Charleston shooter? Sure, we should focus on making sure that the line doesn't get blurred and we start killing people for reasons other than murder, but there's people that are undeniably shitty. People who are suggesting that these mass shootings and serial killings aren't terrible are contrarians that should be ignored.[/QUOTE] Even then, what if the person who murdered one or several people ends up saving a whole lot more people later? Wouldn't that make up for their previous actions? I certainly don't think so, even though there is an objective net positive gain for humanity or whatever. Actions don't cancel eachother out, and killing somebody certainly doesn't bring their victims back to life.

No, under no circumstances. There's too many problems with it for very little benefit.

I used to, but then I grew up.

i'd rather have people suffer while they're alive than have them enjoy the emptiness of death, and if someone commits a crime that gets them incarcerated for life at a relatively young age, well congratu-fucking-lations, you ruined the one chance you had at living a proper life, enjoy having to deal with that wow that sounds edgy but still i hope you understand what i mean